|
There are plenty of "credible climatologists" on BOTH sides of the debate.
That's not what the warmist Professor Jones says, and he's meant to be on your side!!!
Firstly, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Medieval Warming period was hotter than it is now.
However, the warmists realise that this discredits their argument, so they have tried (unsuccessfully) to deny that this period exists. Hardly a sign of credible scientists.
Secondly the credibilty of the recent temperature record is highly debateable - a significant reduction of weather stations, biased to retain the 'warmer ones' and those stations retained often placed in 'dubious' places designed to show warming where none exists.
The warming trend is more like 300 years, starting well before man-made CO2 emmissions were an issue, and an increasing temperature is hardly surprising given that the earth was on its way out of an ice age!
Natural variation is therefore more than sufficient to explain the changes!!
Look at the comparison with recent temperatures and sun spots etc.
No!! Models which are calibrated to historic data then manage to recreate historic data (obviously!!) are then being used to project in to the future and have failed to match up with recent experience.
To say the modelling confirms anything is to totally misunderstand how these models have been set up!
1) Extra heat or extra CO2 ?
2) The data shows that temperature changes influence CO2 levels (with an 800-year lag), NOT the other way around.
3) The planet is not a greenhouse - the greenhouse effect is a drastic simplification of the actual process by which the earth warms and cools
4) In comparison to water vapour, CO2 is a minimal 'greenhouse gas'
You've shown nothing of the sort, just regurgitated the same old nonsense most of which has already been discredited...
Sidicks |
|